Discussion in 'Civil Rights' started by chris155au, Jul 21, 2018.
Follows on from: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ing-cake-case.534233/page-152#post-1069381359
I don't think you quite understand - there was NO evidence of INTENT TO DISCRIMINATE with the appellate court saying that “no such showing” of actual “animus” or intent to discriminate against persons in a protected class was even required!"
Why are they an "evil?"
How does the media misrepresent the laws?
Why do you mean "influencing the application?"
We're literally going in circles here. I'm not sure what will be achieved by going back over the same points. I'm not going to get dragged in to anything we've already gone over;
That was one of the courts opinion of the evidence. If it were as clear cut as you imply, it wouldn't have gone further.
Necessary evil doesn't mean literally evil, it's a turn of phrase. Nobody wants people arrested, fined or (potentially) locked up and nobody wants people prevented from living their lives the way they want for no reason. In a perfect world it wouldn't be necessary but this isn't a perfect world. Within our societies and communities we disagree on how things should be done and those disagreements need resolving one way or another.
I was thinking of things like presenting anti-discrimination laws favouring particular groups, like homosexuals, ethnic minorities or Muslims when the reality of the laws are that they protect everyone by definition. They're applied more often for particular groups because they're much more commonly discriminated against.
Judges and juries are human beings who living the in same world and consume the same media as the rest of us. There are checks and balances (we're discussing one of them here) and judges particularly will have a conscious intention not to be unduly influenced but nobody is perfect. Also in many places, especially the USA, there can be political bias and consideration of voter opinions involved. All of this can push in any direction.
What evidence? There weren't even any witnesses other than the bakers daughter! It was LITERALLY the couple's word against the baker's! The ONLY WAY to have acquired evidence in this case would've been to acquire proof of intent to discriminate! They simply ASSUMED his intent to discriminate! For someone as intelligent as you, I am frankly STUNNED that you're just not getting it at all!
Was this baker not prevented from living his life the way he wanted?
Don’t need evidence. The baker made it clear he wouldn’t bake the cake for gay people because they are gay.
And the baker wasn’t prevented from doing anything.
What do you mean?
You're mixing up "evidence" and "proof". In this case, the actual sequence of events (which I don't believe was ever in dispute) and the words of the baker in his own defence are all relevant evidence. It can't definitively prove his intent either way which is why the commission, and latterly courts, needed to assess that evidence and reach a conclusion. Significantly, this applies equally to those who concluded his actions were discriminatory and to those who concluded they weren't.
Yes, but in this specific aspect, that has potential to impact the lives of other people. Someone (or possibly both) is going to have to be restricted to an extent in such cases, unfortunate but literally unavoidable, hence "necessary evil".
So why should it be one over the other?
A victory for right wing bigotry.
That's an entirely different question. A point I think I already made is that this isn't really about deciding on this specific case but establishing the laws and regulations that will work across all likely scenarios.
Are you calling the Supreme Court right wing?
You think that this Baker was rightly found guilty don’t you?
of course it is
everybody knows it
Morally yes. I view treating same-sex marriage differently to mixed-sex marriage in the same way I’d view treating mixed-race marriage differently to same-race marriage.
For what it’s worth, I also thought the initial penalty the baker received was excessive though. Principles are easy, practical reality is messy and difficult.
At what point did it become right wing?
What was the initial penalty?
My mistake. I was thinking of a similar case where there was an order to pay significant damages. That didn’t happen in this case.
When we're talking about a guilty verdict, we're no longer talking strictly about morality. So try again and actually answer the question.
We should never stop talking about morality. If the valid interpretation of the law creates an immoral result, the law is wrong and should be changed. I don’t claim to be any kind of legal expert, especially in US law, but my impression is that the combination of the various levels of law could be reasonable interpreted either way (hence the dispute) and there are some fundamental contradictions to address. It’s also perfectly possible that the Commission came to the right conclusion for the wrong reasons.
I’ll give you a straight yes if it’ll make you happy, but I reserve the right to ignore any gotchas you try to launch based on it.
Either way? So if the baker had been found innocent, you would've called it "reasonable?"
What do you mean?
I’m saying a ruling could be made in favour the baker within the letter of the relevant laws and a ruling could be made against the baker within the letter of the relevant laws. It’s all a matter of interpretation (and, to be fair, conscious and subconscious socio-political bias). Nothing about this case (or many like it) is clear cut so there isn’t any simple and obvious legal answer.
It’s perfectly possible the suggestion they didn’t treat him fairly due to his religion is valid and that would be wrong. Even if that was the case though, it’s still possible that a completely free and fair process by the commission would have ruled against the baker anyway. His being Christian doesn’t automatically make him guilty but equally his being Christian doesn’t automatically make him innocent.
Yes, but you believe that a ruling that is made against the baker is the right ruling in your opinion, right?
Actually I think that they would've treated a secular person the exact same way other than talking down about Christianity obviously. This was less about being anti-Christian and more about being pro-gay rights.
Yep, no question!
The question of right or wrong needs definition and context. You’re not going to get a simple yes or no answer from me because I don’t believe there is one (and I’m not going to open myself to the gotcha that tends to follow on from demands for a simple answer to a complex question).
I believe the actions of the baker were discriminatory and I don’t think that should happen. There is no perfect way to deal with that kind of conflict (even without the religious aspect) but the kind of anti-discrimination laws and regulations applied here are probably the least worst system. I think it is right for the application of those laws to require businesses not to act in the manner the baker did. I don’t think their religion should be a factor in that decision at all.
The context is very simple. A scenario where a gay couple ask a service provider to service their homosexual wedding and the service provider very politely explains that they are not able to service such an event.
Of course the actions of the baker were discriminatory! Just not on the basis of sexual orientation!
So business people shouldn't be able to live their lives in the way that they want?
Separate names with a comma.